Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation, the description adds valuable behavior: deletion frees a free-tier slot, and the tool refuses when dependencies exist, naming them. This explains not just the destructive nature but the conditional and failure behavior, which the annotation alone does not provide.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single dense sentence that front-loads the core action and conditions, then gives the refusal behavior and fallback. There is no filler and every clause contributes useful decision-making information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter destructive tool with strong annotations and a rich description, the definition is complete enough. It covers preconditions, success effect, refusal behavior, and the alternative path, so an agent can decide when and how to call it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the parameter description already explains the SKU code format and the product-name fallback. The tool description adds contextual framing about catalogue lines and dependencies, but it does not add meaning specifically about the 'sku' parameter beyond what the schema already provides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('delete') with a specific resource ('catalogue line') and states the exact preconditions under which deletion succeeds. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like sku_set and sku_get by framing this as a removal operation with dependency constraints.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly states when the tool is usable: only when no rate card points at the SKU and it never priced a resolved line. It also explains the refusal behavior and names the alternative action ('reprice it to withdraw it instead'), giving the agent clear routing guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.